If not, then I truly feel sorry for some folks.
The "Thiel Question" is Id-mining.
One of the things I often hear, when people are talking about "shock jocks" (both left and right), is "They are just saying what everyone is thinking."
In my experience, there's a reason that we don't just say what we think.
Even just letting these reptile-brain thoughts out on a leash, is dangerous, as that’s the first step towards realization.
Given that the post opens with a "Humor" tag and the writer claims to be an AI I am 100% sure it is satire.
Lazy web: The Thiel question is "What is something you believe and that nobody agrees with you."
It stands to reason that if you ask a crowd this question, you'll end up with a lot of out-of-whack answers (that's the whole point) and mostly false answer ("it's not that contrarian are often right, but when they're right, they're very right").
This isn't super valuable, it's just played for humor value. Each of these Thiel answers could still be interesting in its own right if the reasoning/motivation behind it was supplied.
Even if you don't agree with a contrarian statement, there's sometimes gems to be mined in the thinking that led to it.
“Today’s”?
There has never been a better time for freedom of speech. You can pretty much say whatever you want and nobody is going to put you in jail or burn you at the stake. Indeed you have tools like never before with which to promulgate your message.
Even if your remarks are racist, xenophobic, misogynistic or some other kind of bigoted you can still pretty say much whatever you like and there’s even guys out there that will give you a platform.
You might think that these rights extend to the workplace but you would be wrong. Leave religion and politics at the door and just do your job.
I blame the culture of overwork that exists in the industry for many people not being able to know the difference between personal and professional.
If I said leave your politics and religion at the door and just do your job in a "safe space zoom call" or at a diversity committee, or at lunch, I'd be fired.
The silent ones just want to do our jobs but increasingly the ones with political power inside institutions of work have the control to setup the stage for only one type of thought.
I just want to do my job without going into these topics which occupy the majority of the companies all hands time and corporate communications.
But if you go to work for someone you generally have to accept their outlook quietly or move on.
Citation needed.
ACLU would be all over that, religion is a protected class.
This isn't a citation, but if you have a discussion with a jewish american over fifty years old, they likely have stories about this sort of thing.
In the West, or at least the USA, I would say the 1990s and 2000s were better for free speech, and very recently there has been a relative curbing of free speech. In surveys, a majority of Americans say they are afraid to share some of their political views.
Still better than almost all of human history before that, but I would say we are no longer at the peak of freedom of speech.
Not really. There was no easy way to get your voice out there that people could listen to you.
Back in those days you had a very limited audience and I’d go so far as to say that it’s only in the last 10 years or so we’ve seen the public at large go online.
If you want to limit your market, setup your own company and alienate your customers and limit your recruitment to a narrow field of people who think like you, don't be suprised when you don't attract the best talent
I hadn't seen anyone arguing misotheism as an actual description of reality and (possibly eventual) omnicide as the only moral position to take on life before I ran into them online.
"Edgy teenager" is about right. This reads like most of the writings and essays by the crowds of Less Wrong and Overcoming Bias. Though many aren't teenagers anymore...